The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for five months and one year of suspended execution).

B. According to the evidence relevant to mistake of facts (as to fraud on April 2, 2014), the Defendant’s participation in the fraud may also be recognized as to KRW 60 million, which the Defendant received from the injured party through H on April 2, 2014.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 2, 2014, at around 15:00, the summary of this part of the facts charged, the Defendant, via H, who had been in office as D’s auditor at D’s office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s D office, concluded that “The Defendant would have the Victim E pay KRW 70 million as a deposit for construction work, and paid KRW 70 million as a deposit for construction work, thereby starting construction work at the end of six months at the end of six months, with the interest of KRW 40 million as to the principal and its interest on the principal as of the end of six months.”

However, in fact, even though the Defendant was promoting the G development project plan in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant did not have any specific project plan, but did not have any specific plan, and there was no specific plan to secure funds, so even if the Defendant received the payment from the injured party of the construction deposit, he did not have the intent or ability to ensure the construction on the tunnel bypassing roads and the construction of the Lebak Civil Works, and did not have any intent or ability to return the said construction deposit.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 60 million, excluding the interest accrued from the transfer to the Gwangju Bank account in the H’s name.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances.